Over the course of the Clinton presidency, the American public became very polarized. One camp hated the president and his wife; the other camp supported them. The division was widely viewed as a commentary on the Clintons -- and nothing more.

During the 2000 campaign, conservatives' animosity toward President Clinton largely shifted to his vice president, Al Gore, much as a refrigerator might convey from one homeowner to the next upon the sale of a house. Many Republicans came to hate Gore almost as much as they despised Clinton. And Democrats put aside their misgivings about the lackluster vice president and supported him at the ballot box in even higher percentages than they had Clinton.

Over the last three years, it has become apparent that the nation's polarization far transcends people's feelings about the Clintons. Now, virtually every statement by a prominent Republican or Democrat becomes a partisan Rorschach test, interpreted one way by Democratic voters and the opposite way by Republicans. And so, in watching President Bush's news conference Tuesday night, Republicans most likely saw a strong and resolute president, while Democrats probably saw a president who is in way over his head and has made U.S. foreign policy into his own personal disaster area. The same event, the same words, triggered radically different interpretations.

Anyone who spent time in March in the 18 "purple" states -- the ones considered up for grabs in this presidential election -- endured a Dresden-like bombardment of anti-John Kerry campaign ads by the Bush campaign.

Those brutal ads had limited impact, according to polling by the National Annenberg Election Survey. In the first half of March, when the air assault was just beginning, 40 percent of voters nationwide viewed Kerry favorably. In the second half of the month, 39 percent gave him a favorable rating. Meanwhile, Kerry's unfavorable ratings increased 4 points -- to 28 percent. In the purple states, Kerry's favorable rating dropped 2 points -- to 39 percent -- and his unfavorable rating rose by a single point -- to 29 percent.

Why didn't the Bush campaign's tough ads do more damage to Kerry? Some political strategists who are privy to more-detailed polling suggest that Kerry's unfavorable ratings in purple states did surge in March -- but mainly among Republicans. The ads had little impact on independents, and even less on Democrats. Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz describes that phenomenon as "reinforcing voters' partisan predispositions." My hunch is that Bush's news conference had the same effect.

Likewise, the Democratic presidential candidates' vilification of Bush early this year halted his popularity bounce that followed the capture of Saddam Hussein, but Bush's ratings essentially returned to where they had been in mid-November. Democratic voters settled back into their camp, and Republicans into theirs.

With two evenly divided and extremely polarized parties, and with most independent voters paying little attention, the 2004 presidential contest may well hinge on whatever grabs the nation's attention in the last weeks of the campaign, when independents finally get engaged -- if they ever do. The situation in Iraq in late October, the health of the economy, or whatever the hot issue is on the campaign trail could tip the balance.

Heading into the final week of the 2000 campaign, virtually all of the public polls indicated that Bush was holding a small but steady lead over Gore. Yet on Election Day, Gore won the popular vote by one-half of a percentage point, 500,000 votes out of 104 million cast. The only intervening event that plausibly could have affected that race was the news report that two decades earlier Bush had been arrested in Maine for driving under the influence. When that story broke, it seemed inconsequential. In retrospect, it probably cost Bush the popular vote -- and very nearly the election.

Tiny story, major impact. And that is where our evenly divided, highly polarized electorate takes the nation -- to photo-finish races in which small, late-breaking events can have enormous consequences.

Jobs reports, the rising death toll in Iraq, barrages of negative advertisements -- none of these seem to sway the race much, because so many voters are locked into place. But as purple-state TV viewers can attest, millions and millions of campaign dollars are being spent trying to pry voters loose.

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or
otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec.com does not monitor comments posted to this site (and
has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems
to be in violation of this rule.

Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

In order to better understand the current state of external and internal-facing agency workplace applications, Government Business Council (GBC) and Riverbed undertook an in-depth research study of federal employees. Overall, survey findings indicate that federal IT applications still face a gamut of challenges with regard to quality, reliability, and performance management.

PIV- I And Multifactor Authentication: The Best Defense for Federal Government Contractors

This white paper explores NIST SP 800-171 and why compliance is critical to federal government contractors, especially those that work with the Department of Defense, as well as how leveraging PIV-I credentialing with multifactor authentication can be used as a defense against cyberattacks

This research study aims to understand how state and local leaders regard their agency’s innovation efforts and what they are doing to overcome the challenges they face in successfully implementing these efforts.

The U.S. healthcare industry is rapidly moving away from traditional fee-for-service models and towards value-based purchasing that reimburses physicians for quality of care in place of frequency of care.